Earlier this week, I posted on a proposal from over 100 college presidents to begin debate on lowering the drinking age. The proposal was only to begin debate, but that alone is too much for those ‘Neo Prohibitionists,’ like those at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who argue against a lower age on the basis of ‘honoring science.’
(In this clinical age, all arguments are wrapped in claims of science, data, and studies, however nebulously presented. The original temperance crusaders were not as academically inclined as our era requires.)
Brandon Arnold of Cato delves deeper than a superficial citation, and finds that MADD relies on a flawed study that ignores progress against drunk driving before and apart from drinking age of 21 years. You can bet that MADD will push its flawed study, and argue in the most shrill and emotional way, against any change in the law.
If anti-alcohol crusaders really want to honor science, they should look more carefully at the studies they cite.
Hat tip to Brandon Arnold at Cato, for the term ‘neo prohibitionists’ and parsing studies carefully.